Voyager: AT Aircraft Only??

[deltahotel]

I'm with Wiggy. I fly pretty old 757s and brand new 767s. Very rare to see any maintenance work or downgrades on any of the LV stuff. A downgrade to Land 2 still gives pretty good capability (50'/200m).

[Lockstock]

Not to mention keeping a log of all the boxes status after every flight, so that any spurious fault trends can be monitorerd.

I seriously doubt they have the manpower for that...

Does the 330 really not have an electronic maintenance download?

You're saying it has to be written down using pencil and paper? :eek:



.

[deltahotel]

It probably would originally have had electronic download, but the MoD spec would pay lots of money to have it removed, replaced with paper and pencils and the capability reduced.

[Rigga]

Yes, Glum is probably in the VC10th century, where very much manpower was(is?) required. There's possibly a shortage of good quality Radar Valves too.

I worked for (several) airlines up to 767 and I can't remember ever having an autoland defect that required anything but a short time to fix/replace, even after a downgrade.

As already pointed out - newer aircraft don't have those manpower intensive problems and some can transmit their data downloads on demand.

[mr snow]

Glum,

30 minutes for a land 3 test and fault history/LRU information taken from the CMC via the MCDU. Simples.

[brakedwell]

I can't remember experiencing any autoland faults during the ten years I flew B757/767's, including numerous autolands in the 757 to gain Cat3 type approval during 1983.

[T.R Haychemu]

Every time any part of the autopilot / land system fails that requires a rectification / box-swap the groundcrew have to carry out a full autopilot functional check with full autoland. That's about 8 hours work...

This of course includes the ILS and RADALT systems.

Not to mention keeping a log of all the boxes status after every flight, so that any spurious fault trends can be monitorerd.

Clearly you are not an A330 type rated licensed avionics engineer then?

Don't let facts stop you posting though, there are plenty of other posts on this thread with about as much genuine factual information as yours!

[T6NL]

I understand that a Voyager diverted to Manchester yesterday when it was foggy at Brize. Would almost certainly have got in if it were Cat IIIB operational.

[Blue Bottle]

Did'nt help much at LHR did it, would it have saved the day at BZN ?

Weather: Fog And Ice Hit Dozens Of Flights (http://news.sky.com/story/1024193/weather-fog-and-ice-hit-dozens-of-flights)

[T6NL]

What nonsense. If LHR didn't have Cat III capability then virtually everything would have had to divert when the visibility dropped below the "normal" Cat I limits, causing far more disruption than actually occurred.

We all know that as LHR operates close to capacity, disruption occurs when LVPs are in force. I would suggest the same could not be said about BZZ :ugh:

[Arty Fufkin]

Voyager IS cat III capable
The crews ARE being trained to fly cat III

However,

Brize does NOT have a Cat III approach!

So before the old PFI/Airtanker outrage bus goes on another outing, it may also be worth considering that the RAF has had another Cat III aircrfat at Brize for the last 30 years as the TriStar has been cat III capable it's entire life. Is was the RAF that took the decision not to train or qualify crews to fly cat III approaches, largely because it was TFD. Furthermore, if the RAF had bought the A330, I bet they still be working out with airbus where to put the Navigator. God knows they are still trying to justify why a Nav/ Air Eng/ ALM is required to do the job of a purser!

Military efficiency? Never seen any of that!

[Uncle Ginsters]

Did'nt help much at LHR did it, would it have saved the day at BZN ?

Actually, it did :=

Cat IIIB is the reason that only 60-odd flights were diverted/delayed.

The were not delayed because they couldn't get in, they were delayed due to the increased IFR separation that LVPs require to make the rollout safe.

That's with LHR's relentless rate of approaches...i fear BZZ would cope just fine!

[Type1106]

Way before the arrival of Tristar, and as Airsound has posted previously, the Belfast was Cat III capable with the same equipment as the HS Trident operated by BEA; indeed it was supposed to have contributed to the auto land proving that was going on at the time.
However with no compatible ILS at home base, BZN, it was never really used and no crews were trained to operate to Cat III, though we did carry out autoland.
To repeat what has been said... BZN is a basic Cat I ILS, and my understanding, from operating at BZN for 5 years on the Belfast then some 14 years on VC 10s, is that there are topographical and infrastructure reasons why the ILS on 26/08 would not meet the criteria required for Cat II/III ops. Maybe someone with greater knowledge can either shoot me down or explain further.
Rgds
1106

[BEagle]

....there are topographical and infrastructure reasons why the ILS on 26/08 would not meet the criteria required for Cat II/III ops. Maybe someone with greater knowledge can either shoot me down or explain further.

Correct.

When the TriShaw was first at Brize, a lot of money was spent diverting the northside road to move it further away from the RW. This was a precursor to enabling higher category ILS approaches and autolands. Then it was 'discovered' that the topography of Lew Hill ruled out Cat III on RW26 and it was already known that the ILS on RW08 had a distinct glideslope distortion which, after the near crash of a TriStar, led to the restriction on auto-coupled approaches on RW08 which is still the case today.

[Type1106]

Thanks Beags - I knew you would have the answer.
However they did know Lew Hill was a problem back in the Belfast days but there was no ILS on 08 back then.
I certainly remember the Tristar auto approach on 08 when it hit the runway with such a bang that could be heard in Cartoon Town! Some interesting people in the cockpit that day as I recall, not least 38Gp Staneval boss.
Rgds
1106

[haltonapp]

It will have to be state of the art gps approaches then! But don't stop shaving till it happens.:rolleyes:

[1.3VStall]

Type 1106 - and the Chairperson of AirTanker!!!!

[LFFC]

I seem to recall that the TriStar was actually cleared for ILS IIIC operations - 0ft DH and 0m visibility.

The trick was to set everything up about 15nm from touchdown - not from the visual circuit!

[collbar]

Has MLS ever been considered.. this would be able to cope with awkward hills! Surely the new gen aircraft have it fitted..C-17, A400, A330 etc

[Uncle Ginsters]

Collbar,
they do (at least C-17 does) but similarly to ILS, they're Cat II only. That would still be a step forward though... a fair point about getting around Brize's peculiarities :D

[Art Field]

I wonder if it is necesary to spend the time and the money training crews to cat111 ILS standard. Not a recorded statistic but a fact . In 25 years continuous flying Victor and VC10 Tankers I was only diverted once for weather, It might be wqrth investigating further.

[Wrathmonk]

I was only diverted once for weather

What about weather scrubs before you launched?

[D-IFF_ident]

How many RAF fast jet receivers are Cat III capable? Kinda pointless to launch the tanker if no receivers are going to fly. :}

[BEagle]

Except, of course, if the aircraft is a tanker-transport flying an AT sortie......

Weather diversions might have been rare on trails due to the weather minima applicable to fast-jets, but were far more common on trucking trips....:bored:

[D-IFF_ident]

So the thread title should read "Voyager: AAR aircraft only"?

:E

[collbar]

Talking of Voyager.. i heard Cobham gave airbus mil their first conversion a few weeks ago..what happened to it since!

[esscee]

So, Cobham have actually managed to finish and deliver a converted A330, only 5 months later than planned. Better late than never.

[Saintsman]

I wouldn't put all the blame on Cobham. From what I heard, they struggled to get the mod kits from Spain (or should I say complete mod kits).

Of course once they actually do the remaining aircraft at Getafe the problem of shortages will go away :hmm:

[Easy Street]

How many RAF fast jet receivers are Cat III capable? Kinda pointless to launch the tanker if no receivers are going to fly. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Probably a 'wah' but there are plenty out there reading this who would take the above at face value!

There are plenty of occasions where Brize is fogged in, yet glorious sunshine prevails along the east cost where all the receiver bases are.

[force_ale]

Rightly so. How can anyone make a correct airworthiness decision without attending EOT. The sooner we have EngO GEs the better.

[deltahotel]

Wx stats - can't give anything particularly helpful as I don't know all the likely destinations, but I fly approx 200 sectors pa all over Europe and into the States and I reckon I do 5 ish autolands each year. You only need to be unlucky and get one of those European winter high pressure things and I can manage 5 in a week.

Of those though, very few are IIIB - IIIA or even II would give a very useful capability.

[collbar]

EngO Ge's......desperately trying not to bite at this wriggly worm!

[esscee]

An engineering officer making a correct airworthiness decision, there's one for the record books. Quick put him into the MAA, they have an urgent need for such people.

[12 twists per inch]

EngOs as GEs would be a tremendous cabaret! Personally wouldn't trust one with anything as technical as a tv remote control, lets face it, they even took away signing leave passes from them ...:}

[downsizer]

Can't believe anybody took his comment seriously...

[BEagle]

Oh dear, it would appear that the Baldricks have been eating dung again.....:\

[12 twists per inch]

Ah those very Baldricks who are signing off airworthiness on Voyager, as the EngO does ...tea white one please boss. :cool:

[force_ale]

Oh dear, it would appear that the civilian still thinks he's an officer again..... :\

[BEagle]

"....this contract reprisents yet another shinking of military manpower in the serving forces. Now that the withdrawal off military support has turned the Cyprus Scorpion squadron into a paper tiger surley this will happan to the tanker fleet.

Which licenced engineer would turn down a us$80,000 job to get dicked around like a serviceman. I have seen how it works when you have civilians in a first line enviroment and I can tell you good faith on the civvie engineers only goes so far, then you have to pay.

At the end of the day dicisions have to be made; do you want a military force or a mercinary team looking after the nations assets. If its the latter then I hope that future crews will enjoy being talked down to by licensed professional whilst trying to snag there areoplane. In the land off the G plate they are top dog and you are are military wannabe. Enjoy the future."

Your tune hasn't changed much over the years, FA, has it.....?

[T.R Haychemu]

Downsizer....I can't see that being entirely true! What was the nature of the snag? If the defect is within the scope of the technical data available then it can be deemed servicable or not, and dealt with as appropriate, without any input from base or the manufacturer.

The only time you'd have to go to maintrol (or whatever AirTanker call it) or to Airbus is if something is outside of the technical data available, for example structural damage.

[VinRouge]

Is air tanker using acars/Airline Op control?

[collbar]

You got a technical answer from Airbus/mil !!!!!! That I find hard to believe ..... good luck with that

[Arty Fufkin]

Surely any snag falls into one of 2 categories: within the scope of the MEL or not.

If its within the MEL, go flying. If its not, get it fixed. No GE that I've ever come across has had the authority to "make his own call" as to whether or not the aircraft is airworthy or not.

[air pig]

On a slight change of heading, in yesterdays Telegraph, with the increase in 'lifespan' of the Tristar, will Voyager be able to take up the slack.

RAF's Afghan operations could continue after withdrawal - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9756239/RAFs-Afghan-operations-could-continue-after-withdrawal.html)

Not from what I've heard.

[Blue Bottle]

“If there is a requirement for it, we can do a lot of what we do at the moment from outside the country,” said a source.

If this is the case then Airbus will cope fine.....